is dillo ready for load_background_images=YES in a release?

[eocene]

Once you know that load_background_images can be toggled from the menu,
it's good, but our css/rendering is still incomplete enough that
background images obscure text rather frequently. I think
load_background_images=YES by default may make the experience of
trying out dillo a negative one.

[Johannes Hofmann]

Post by eocene
Once you know that load_background_images can be toggled from the menu,
it's good, but our css/rendering is still incomplete enough that
background images obscure text rather frequently. I think
load_background_images=YES by default may make the experience of
trying out dillo a negative one.

I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while
now and I like it more than without it.
Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites
you go to.
Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes
things worse?

Cheers,
Johannes

[eocene]

Post by Johannes Hofmann
I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while
now and I like it more than without it.
Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites
you go to.
Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes
things worse?

I just started turning it on regularly for this persistent connections
testing, and had been browsing as much to exercise that code as to
_browse_, so I don't remember much at the moment. But I happen to
remember that the appearance of the top of http://straightdope.com
was dismaying.

[Johannes Hofmann]

Post by eocene

Post by Johannes Hofmann
I'm running dillo with load_background_images=YES for quite a while
now and I like it more than without it.
Of course your personal experience heavily depends on what sites
you go to.
Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes
things worse?

I just started turning it on regularly for this persistent connections
testing, and had been browsing as much to exercise that code as to
_browse_, so I don't remember much at the moment. But I happen to
remember that the appearance of the top of http://straightdope.com
was dismaying.

Interesting. They try to move the text somewhere to the left to make
it invisible if CSS is enabled:

#header .site_tagline a
{
display: block;
width: 788px;
height: 116px;
text-indent: -2000px;
}

I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.

[eocene]

Post by Johannes Hofmann
I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.

Did we ever do anything about negative margins? I remember that
being brought up in the early stages of css, where it wasn't
going to be easy to get dw to deal with it...

[Sebastian Geerken]

Post by eocene

Post by Johannes Hofmann
I guess we don't support this negative text-indent.

Did we ever do anything about negative margins? I remember that
being brought up in the early stages of css, where it wasn't
going to be easy to get dw to deal with it...

I plan a redesign of dw sizes soon, after floats, before absolute
positions. I'll see how it fits in there. (It's on my list now.)

Sebastian

[eocene]

Post by Johannes Hofmann
Do you have some examples wher load_background_images=YES makes
things worse?

About halfway down the page at http://arstechnica.com , there's
a picture of a bearded guy, and in hard-to-read gray on the
background image there's text like "feature story" and "i had my
dna analyzed..."

I've noticed how sometimes the top of a background image will be
repeated, and wondered why that happens.